Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhagwan Singh vs State Of M.P. on 7 October, 2025
Author: Anil Verma
Bench: Anil Verma
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24911
1 CRR-401-2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
ON THE 7 th OF OCTOBER, 2025
CRIMINAL REVISION No. 401 of 2009
BHAGWAN SINGH AND OTHERS
Versus
STATE OF M.P.
Appearance:
Shri Amit Goswami, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri Puran Kumar Kulshreshtha, Public Prosecutor for State.
ORDER
Arrest warrant issued against petitioner No.3 Rajendra Singh S/o
Ramkaran Singh but same has been returned unserved with a report
submitted by SHO, Lahar, District Bhind that petitioner No.3 Rajendra Singh
has been died on 6.4.2021. Report is supported by copy of death certificate.
Therefore, this appeal stands abated against petitioner No.3 Rajendra Singh.
Petitioners No.1, 2, & 4 appeared in person and they have been duly
identified by their counsel.
With the consent of both the parties, matter is heard finally.
2. The petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision under Section
397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence dated 25.5.2009 passed by the 6th Additional Sessions Judge(Fast
Track), Lahar, District Bhind in Criminal Appeal No.12/1998, whereby the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24911
2 CRR-401-2009
judgment dated 31.12.2008 passed by the JMFC, Lahar in Criminal Case
No.1081/2006 has been affirmed, whereby petitioners have been convicted
for the offence under Section 324/34, 325/34 and 323/34 of IPC and
sentenced to suffer 3 months RI, 6 months RI with fine of Rs.200/- and 3
months RI each respectively with usual default stipulations
3. The prosecution story in brief is that on 18.10.2004 at about 11 AM,
when complainant Bharat Singh was feeding cattles, at that time, all the
petitioners/accused persons came there and started abusing him in filthy
language and Udayveer committed martpeet with him by means of wakia
and hasia and stick. When his father Ramlakhan came there for intervention,
he was also beaten by petitioners. Complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Lahar,
District Bhind. His MLC has been conducted. Accordingly, offence has been
registered.
4. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed
before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Lahar, District Bhind. Trial Court has
framed the charges under Sections 323/34, 324/34 and 325/34 ,504 of IPC.
Petitioners abjured their guilt and pleaded complete innocence. Prosecution
has examined as many as seven witnesses while defence did not examine any
witness.
5. The trial Court after considering the submissions advanced by both
the parties and scrutinizing entire evidence available on record, convicted
and sentenced all the petitioners as aforementioned. Being aggrieved by the
said conviction, the petitioners have preferred a Criminal Appeal before the
6th ASJ(Fast Track) Lahar, Bhind but the same was dismissed by affirming
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24911
3 CRR-401-2009
the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. Being
aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence passed by both the Courts
below, petitioners have preferred this Criminal Revision before this Court.
6. The petitioners have preferred present Revision on several grounds,
but during the course of the argument, learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that petitioners do not want to press this Criminal Revision on merit
and are not assailing the conviction and sentence part of the judgment. He
has confined his argument only to the extent of quantum of the sentence and
his sole prayer is that the imprisonment of the petitioners be reduced to the
period already undergone by them, as the petitioners are facing trial for last
21 years. Petitioners have no criminal past, therefore, their jail sentence be
reduced to the period already undergone.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State opposes the
revision and prays for its rejection by submitting that both the Courts below
have rightly convicted and sentenced the petitioners and the sentence in
question is sufficient.
8. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
9. In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the
petitioners, although the conviction has not been challenged, but a bare
perusal of the evidence available on record, also justifies the judgments of
conviction passed by both the Courts below.
10. So far as the quantum of jail sentence is concerned, the
submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners appear to be just and
proper. Petitioners have no criminal past. Petitioner No.3 Rajendra has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:24911
4 CRR-401-2009
died and Petitioners No.1, 2, & 4 have now turned more than 50 years of age.
Therefore, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate to reduce the jail
sentence to the period already undergone by the petitioners.
11. Considering the aforesaid, the revision is partly allowed by
maintaining the conviction of the petitioners, but reducing their jail sentence
to the period already undergone by them. The fine amount imposed upon the
petitioners by both the Courts below is hereby affirmed. Petitioners are on
bail, their surety and bail bonds stand discharged.
12. The order regarding disposal of the property as pronounced by the
trial Court is also affirmed.
13. Let a copy of this order alongwith record of both the Courts below
be sent back to the concerned Courts for information and necessary
compliance.
14. Certified copy as per rules.
(ANIL VERMA)
JUDGE
"R"
